

$3 



3 



912 
83 

py 1 



Edward Raymond Turner 

of the University of Michigan 

Apostle and Apologist 
of Reaction 



His Widely Advertised Book, "England and Ireland/ 

Proclaimed "Impartial, Comprehensive and 

Authoritative/' is a Mass of 

Misinformation 



By DANIEL T. O'CONNELL, LL.D. 

Member, American Bar Association 
Director, Irish National Bureau 



1919 

IRISH NATIONAL BUREAU 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 



X83 



Gift 
Publisher 



Introduction 



Ireland has for centuries been subjected to 
systematic misrepresentation of her history 
and her people by wily English propa- 
gandists. The freedom-loving people of other 
lands who, if they knew the truth, would 
sympathize with the Irish nation, have been 
carefully blinded by a veil of misinformation 
designed to create hostility to the Irish. This 
English propaganda has been particularly 
active in the United States in the past, and 
is seemingly at its height here today. 

Lord Northcliffe, the English editor and 
publisher, whose wealth and initiative make 
him especially powerful, is particularly active 
in the work of deluging America with Eng- 
lish propaganda. He realizes that Americans 
of Irish blood have awakened America to the 
peril which confronts it in the English at- 
tempt to break down our century-long tradi- 
tions and to make the United States an ally 
of England. It is in a desperate effort to 
stay this rising tide of popular opinion that 
England is today doing her best to discredit 
the Irish people and American citizens of 
Irish blood. England hopes, by painting a 
black picture of Irish life, to prompt Amer- 
ican lovers of liberty to turn their eyes 
away. 

The methods of Lord Northcliffe's propa- 
ganda machine are clearly outlined in his own 
paper, the London Times, in its issue of the 
4th of July, 1919, as follows: 

"Efficient propaganda, carried out by 
those trained in the arts of creating pub- 
lic good-will and of swaying public opin- 
ion towards a definite purpose ... is 
now needed, urgently needed. To make 
a beginning. Efficiently organized propa- 
ganda should mobolize the press, the 
church, the stage and the cinema ; press 
into active service the whole educational 
systems of both countries, and root the 
spirit of good-will in the homes, the uni- 
versities, public and high schools and 
primary schools, It should also provide 
for subdizing the best men to write books 
and articles on special subjects, to be pub- 
lished in cheap editions or distributed 
free to classes interested. 



"Authoritative opinion upon current 
controversial topics should be prepared 
both for the daily press and for maga- 
zines ; histories and textbooks upon lit- 
erature should be revised. New books 
should be added, particularly in the pri- 
mary schools. Hundreds of exchange 
university scholarships should be pro- 
vided. Local societies should be formed 
in every centre to foster British-Amer- 
ican good-will, in close cooperation with 
an administrative committee. Important 
articles should be broken up into mouth- 
fuls for popular consumption, and book- 
lets, cards, pamphlets, etc., distributed 
through organized channels to the public. 

"Advertising space should be taken in 
the press, on the boardings, and in the 
street cars for steadily presenting terse, 
easily read and remembered mind-com- 
pelling phrases and easily grasped car- 
toons, that the public may subconscious- 
ly absorb the fundamentals of a complete 
mutual understanding." 

When Prof. Edward Raymond Turner of 
the University of Michigan introduced to 
the American people a volume entitled "Ire- 
land and England," it was widely advertised 
as an "impartial, comprehensive and authori- 
tative" story of the Irish situation. Examina- 
tion, however, shows it to be exactly the op- 
posite. 

Americans of Irish blood have decided that 
misrepresentation of Ireland and of the 
Irish people must come to an end in the 
United States of America. They insist that 
the truth be told, and stand ready to point 
out misrepresentations and to condemn those 
who sponsor them. 

The Irish National Bureau presents in this 
pamphlet a detailed review of Prof. Turner's 
book. It leaves it to readers to judge for 
themselves whether Prof. Turner of the Uni- 
versity of Michigan has been "impartial, com- 
prehensive and authoritative," or whether he 
has, knowingly or unknowingly, enlisted in 
the ranks of those who serve England. 

Washington, D. C, 1919. 



Review 



By Daniel T. O'Connell 



The Century Company of New York has 
recently published a book entitled "Ireland 
and England." The author of this book is 
Edward Raymond Turner, professor of Eu- 
ropean History in the University of Michi- 
gan at Ann Arbor, Mich. The book is dedi- 
cated to Eleanor Bowie Turner and E. B. T. 
in aest. mem. 

The publishers in the advertising notes on 
the paper wrapper of the book, which were 
no doubt written by the author himself, call 
it "an impartial, comprehensive, authoritative 
history of Ireland in its relations to England, 
covering especially the effort of Ireland to 
gain its independence." The publishers also 
state that this book "adequately meets the 
want of Americans for a clear, comprehen- 
sive, unbiased report on the whole subject." 
It is further asserted that "Professor Turner 
has collected and arranged his material with 
the thoroughness and understanding of a con- 
scientious scholar." The author himself, in 
his preface, states that "he has written the 
book with the desire of helping to bring 
about a better understanding of a question 
which is very troublesome and perplexing not 
only to the Irish and the English but less 
directly to the people of the United States" 
He complains that "in America Irish matters 
are usually discussed by extremists" and states 
that "he has wished to write without preju- 
dice and do justice to all." Again and again 
the author reverts to his purpose and desire 
to be impartial, and it is on the basis of this 
purpose that he rests his claim to a hearing 
from the people of the United States, whom 
he professes to instruct on the subject of 
the relations of England and Ireland, because, 
as he asserts, "a correct appreciation of the 
general bearing of the Irish question and its 
difficulties has not generally existed in this 
country, partly through lack of information" 
(p. 439). 

The book has been supplemented by an 
article in the August number of Mr. Arthur 
Page's "World's Work," which, although it 
contains nothing new. serves to bring into 



clearer light the character, the competence 
and the animus of the author. 

The time was admirably chosen for the 
publication of such a book, and the American 
people are invited to buy it on the assurance 
that they will find in it full and accurate 
information on a subject in which very many 
of them have a sentimental interest and in 
the settlement of which all of them are now 
profoundly concerned. The reasons why they 
should buy this book are many and strong, 
It has behind it the reputation of a great pub- 
lishing firm ; it is the work of a man who 
holds a position of trust and responsibility in 
a great educational institution ; it deals with 
an historical subject on which the author 
writes in his capacity as a professional his- 
torian, and on the word of the author and 
his publishers we have it that it is the work 
of a thorough and conscientious scholar. 

In spite, however, of the reputation of 
the Century Company, of the position of the 
author, of his professions of impartiality, and 
the assurance of author and publisher that 
the book is the fruit of the labor of a con- 
scientious scholar, "Ireland and England." !>y 
Edward Raymond Turner, is not history; it 
is not impartial; it is not comprehensive; it 
is not authoritative ; it is not the product of 
a scholar ; it is not American. It is not his- 
tory because it sins against all the recognized 
canons of historical composition ; it is not 
impartial because it betrays on every page 
passion and prejudice; it is not comprehen- 
sive because it suppresses all mention of sub- 
stantive facts and events ; it is not authori- 
tative because it rests on superficial knowledge, 
colored and warped by prejudice; it is not 
the work of a scholar because it gives no 
evidence of a sincere effort to know the truth ; 
and it is not American because it lacks the 
essentially American quality of fair play, be- 
cause the author's point of view is not Amer- 
ican, and because it contains unwarranted 
fleers and flings at things American. 

It Is Not History. No work can be re- 
garded as history which does not give evi- 



dence that its author was acquainted with 
the technique which has raised history to the 
rank of a science. Where acquaintance with 
technique and the scientific spirit are absent 
there can be no history. The material with 
which the historian works is evidence. Un- 
der the hands of the man who knows the 
rules governing the collection, criticism and 
exegesis of evidence and who is guided by 
the scientific spirit, this evidence is trans- 
formed into history, into a mirror, a pres- 
entation of truth. The evidence is found in 
sources, primary or secondary, original or 
derivative. To be unacquainted with the 
sources or to misunderstand authorities can 
result only in caricature or misrepresentation. 
The author of this book has obviously no 
acquaintance with the primary sources of 
Irish history; he is not acquainted with the 
Irish language, and wherever primary sources 
are quoted it is at second hand. In addi- 
tion, he frequently lays himself open to the 
charge of not having understood his sec- 
ondary authorities. As might be expected, 
a bibliography is appended to the book. It 
is incomplete and insufficient, and yet the 
author does not positively state that he has 
used it. He says, "It is a list known to me 
or useful in the writing of this book." An 
incomplete bibliography betokens either dis- 
honesty or ignorance. Yet it is on the basis 
of this superficial, utterly inadequate knowl- 
edge of the subject that he has had the 
effrontery to designate his work a history. 

It is not authoritative. Not only is the 
author unacquainted with the essential pri- 
mary sources and almost entirely unversed 
in the secondary literature of the subject, 
but his work is a travesty on Historical 
Methodology and a crime against Historical 
Technique. There are three characteristics 
of his method, which are found in every 
chapter and practically on every page, which 
cause one to wonder whether he wishes to 
be taken seriously or whether he is clowning 
his way through the performance. Viewing 
the matter as charitably as possible, no con- 
clusion is possible other than that he was 
induced to rush into print with such an utterly 
unscientific preparation for the task that his 
work necessarily bears an unscientific char- 
acter, and that it is marked all through with 
such vicious partisanship as to forfeit al! 
claim to the name of history. It is conjec- 



tural where it should be certain ; it is cloudy 
where it should be clear; it is erroneous 
where it should be truthful. 

It is conjectural. No man who possesses 
exact information and who is not actuate.; 
by the will to deceive will give a narrative 
purporting to be history a form that might 
be borrowed from the style of gossips around 
a town pump. This is precisely what the au- 
thor of this book has done. He is the town- 
pump type of historian. From the first page 
to the last, with painful reiteration, we meet 
the phrases "it has been said," "it has been 
wisely said," "it has been conjectured." "ii 
has been held," "it is thought," "it may be 
that," "most popular writers," "it was con- 
sidered," "some believed," "it would seem,'* 
"it began to seem," "observers say," "some 
people have thought," "some writers," "com- 
petent observers," "men said," "some have 
wondered," "many Englishmen," "most peo- 
ple say," "it is asserted," "statesmen knew,'' 
"it has been justly said," etc., etc.. etc. It is 
conceivable that an author, in dealing with 
a remote period, about which he has only 
the most superficial knowledge, might resort 
to such a device in order to hide his insuffi- 
ciency ; but no such excuse exists in cases 
where he is dealing with matters of common 
knowledge. We could wish that we had been 
spared the tiresome task of reading about 
what was said, or what was conjectured, or 
what competent observers say, or what some 
people think regarding the fourth, or the tenth, 
or the eighteenth century, and we shall spare 
others by refraining from quoting any ot 
these gems of wisdom. We shall take the 
liberty, however, of giving a few specimens 
of the author's method in dealing with cur- 
rent events. As these specimens are typica'. 
we shall have more to say about them fur- 
ther on. The author (p. 406) speaks about 
"ideal lurking places (for submarines) on 
the Irish coast." Then we find the statement. 
"It is said German submarines did get sonic 
assistance on the Irish coast." A little fur- 
ther on rumor and gossip have become fact, 
for we find the positive assertion, "German 
submarines got petrol and supplies on the 
coast." Another passage is so characteristic 
that it is worth quoting in full as an exam- 
ple of Professor Turner's conscience histor- 
ique, "Representatives were sent by the Phil- 
adelphia Convention to Ireland, where they 



were received with wild ovation, since they, 
like the Sinn Fein leaders, just before, seemed 
to promise that the Peace Conference would 
take up Ireland's case, and that Irish inde- 
pendence would follow soon after. Their 
activities were regarded by many of the 
British people with considerable coolness and 
suspicion. It was believed that no other gov- 
ernment than the British would have per- 
mitted such delegates to act as these Ameri- 
cans did; and it was thought that such toler- 
ance had been a grievious mistake, since 
competent observers were now declaring that 
the Irish people were so wrought upon and 
so inflamed that only by a miracle would it 
be possible to avert a rebellion worse than 
the one the year before." 

These are typical examples of how this 
Professor of History presents his subject. 
That a professional historian should have 
recourse to a method so obviously dishonest, 
so patently intended to deceive, is hardly 
more inexplicable than that he should have 
such a low opinion of the intellectual calibre 
of the people for whom the book is intended. 
Were it not that such statements as those 
quoted above are soberly set forth by a pro- 
fessor in a university supported by the citi- 
zens of a great Commonwealth, it might 
easily be believed that they were made by 
some flippant reporter on a yellow journal. 
It may be that the uncertainty which comes 
from inadequate knowledge, the timidity aris- 
ing from partial assimilation of secondary 
sources, may have led the author to resort 
to the device of anonymity in order to con- 
ceal his ignorance, or he may have had the 
hope that he could thus make a show of 
erudition to impress the unwary. There is 
one chapter, however, for which no such plea 
can be made, and which marks the author 
as a charlatan and an impostor. In the chap- 
ter entitled "Arguments About Home-Rule," 
the author, after an entirely uncalled-for as- 
sertion that "he holds no brief in this chap- 
ter," repeats ad nauseam the strange and 
weird charges made by Orangemen as argu- 
ments against home-rule, and adds, "I neither 
defend nor vouch for their truth." That is 
precisely what he should have done as an 
historian, especially as his work is intended 
as a book of instruction for Americans, from 
which they will be enabled to form a just 
estimate of the Irish question. The repeti- 



tion of such charges, false and ridiculous on 
their face, may produce the effect he desires; 
they may tend to spread prejudice and error, 
but the honest historian would have tried to 
find out what they were worth, and he would 
have expressed his opinion. Otherwise, how 
can those who are desirons of forming an 
estimate of the merits of the ease judge of 
the psychology of those who are influenced 
by such arguments. Repeating the blind rav- 
ings of Carsonite fanatics may have been Pro- 
fessor Turner's method of arriving at the 
heart of the matter, but it might reasonably 
be expected that a professor would take a 
large, philosophical view of the subject, that 
he would have tried to find the real issues 
at stake in the struggle between Carsonites 
and Nationalists in Ireland. To do so, how- 
ever, might not suit the book of the pro- 
fessor. We believe that be is incapable of a 
large philosophical view of any subject, and 
that he has no conception that there is any 
side to the Carsonite movement but that ttf 
be found in pamphlets issued by Orange 
Lodges. Professor Turner constantly bases 
his apology for England and his opposition 
and animosity to all things Irish on the 
ground that Irishmen can trust to the fair- 
ness of the English democracy for a prompt 
and just settlement of Irish claims. Had he 
any knowledge of the parliamentary struggles 
in England in recent years, be might have 
known that the entente between Bberalism and 
democracy in England and nationalism in 
Ireland was due to the fact that both were 
striving for progressive legislation. He might 
have learned that the history of the Orange 
representatives in Parliament has been and is 
one of consistent and unwavering opposition 
to everything progressive, liberal or demo- 
cratic. No movement tending to social re- 
form or social betterment has been intro- 
duced into the House of Commons in recent 
years without arousing the bitter opposition 
of the Orangemen and especially of their 
present leader, Carson. Orangemen were no 
doubt influenced by the campaign literature 
issued by their lodges ; the stuff will not make 
much impression on Americans. 

Not only does the author attempt to hide 
his animus and his ignorance behind a shield 
of anonymity, but he constantly moves under 
a smoke screen of analogy. Practically no 
statement i« made regarding the history of 



Ireland or the events of the present time which 
does not draw forth an analogy or a paral- 
lel of some kind. Are the English convicted 
of cruelty or barbarity, immediately an anal- 
ogy to show that the Germans are, or were, 
more cruel than the English ; was there reli- 
gious persecution in Ireland, there was also 
persecution and proscription in Bohemia ; 
there were plantations in Ireland, so, too, in 
the West Indies there were plantations ; there 
were secret political societies in Ireland, and 
at once a disquisition on secret societies in 
Russia ; if there were cruel landlords in Ire- 
land, were there not Prussian junkers and 
Austrian nobles who were cruel? With no 
reason, or for any reason, we are compelled 
to watch the author display his store of use- 
less knowledge in this fashion. He descants 
on Russian Reds and English Suffragettes, 
on Czecho-Slovaks and Turks, of cabbages 
and kings, of anything and everything, all 
with the purpose of showing that, bad as 
were the conditions in Ireland, a careful stu- 
dent of horrors can match them elsewhere. 
And to what purpose? Nobody has ever 
asserted that tyranny is or was a monopoly 
of the English or that suffering is an exclu- 
sive prerogative of the Irish. The fact that 
oppression once existed in other countries did 
not and does not lighten the burden of the 
Irish, while the obvious natural inference that 
since oppression has ceased to exist in other 
countries it should also cease to exist in Ire- 
land is altogether lost on Professor Turner. 
Following the instinct of the pettifogger, to 
hide a bad case by abusing somebody, he 
fails to see what is so clear to others, even 
to Englishmen. Major Erskine Childers can 
teach him that "Ireland is now the only white 
nationality in the world where the principle 
of self-determination is not, at least in theory, 
conceded." The appeal to the analogy, to 
the far-fetched parallel, to abuse of others, 
is a form of timid emotionalism, of cowardice 
which cannot take the place of thought and 
reasoned conviction. Such silly scolding will 
impress a normal circle of normal men an*! 
women as nothing more than the vapid out- 
pourings of a mind shackled by prejudice and 
too weak for objective reality. Nobody will 
withhold a measure of pity from a professor 
and an historian who, in order to bolster up 
a bad case, has so far forgotten the dignity 
of his calling and his profession as to resort 



to such questionable devices as those of 
anonymity and the analogy. 

The author is a purveyor of error and mis- 
representation. It can be said without exag- 
geration that there are few direct statements 
in this book to which exception cannot be 
taken as an open contravention of truth or 
fact. Many statements are so absurdly erro- 
neous that no schoolboy would be guilty of 
them. Thus we are told that the Bull Lauda- 
biliter was issued by Pope Alexander III ; 
that, "generally speaking, Ireland is passing 
into the hands of its people more than any 
other country." Such utterances as this lat- 
ter betray such an abysmal ignorance of the 
conditions of land-tenure throughout the 
world that one is tempted to lay the book 
aside and to say a prayer that there may be 
few such books in the future. Has the au- 
thor compared the land situation in Ireland 
with that in other countries besides the thre<" 
he mentioned, Russia, Serbia and France? 
Apparently not. We are told that Daniel 
O'Connell, after his condemnation by a 
packed jury in Ireland, appealed to the House 
of Lords, "which, with the fairness which 
English tribunals are accustomed to use, re- 
versed the sentence of conviction." The 
packed jury is as much an English institu- 
tion as the House of Lords or the public 
house. Does this professor expect to impose 
on people of intelligence by such a statement 
as the following : "Of Ulster's representa- 
tives in the House of Commons, nearly as 
many supported home-rule as desired a con- 
tinuance of the Union"? The exact num- 
bers were: Home-rulers, 17; Unionists, 16. 
To attempt to call attention to all the au- 
thor's misstatements in regard to Irish his- 
tory or, in fact, in matters of general culture, 
would mean taking him into elementary 
classes in both. Through page after page, 
chapter after chapter, the author stumbles, 
trips and strays ; he leaves behind him 
a trail of error, vagueness and analogy, 
and yet what he has done is called "an au- 
thoritative, impartial and scholarly history." 
Pity gives place to indignation, however, 
when he is found shutting his eyes to facts 
which are matters of common knowledge and 
which the attentive perusal of the daily pa- 
pers would have revealed to him. His failure 
to find those facts is all the more culpable 
because he has listed in his bibliography books 



8 



which contain the very information which 
would have made his narrative appear like 
history. Even when he attempts to repre- 
sent the political conditions in Ireland on a 
map, he departs from reality. At his instiga- 
tion, no doubt, the Pages have printed a map 
in their "World's Work" with the subscript, 
"How Ireland is divided against itself," 
which, to speak mildly, is a graphic misrep- 
resentation. Ireland is not divided politically 
according to provincial boundaries. 

The same set purpose of misrepresentation 
and malicious distortion of fact and truth is 
found constantly on the printed page, espe- 
cially in the last third of the book, which is 
devoted to the consideration of contemporary 
events. In this portion of his narrative the 
author aims at bringing out certain views, 
viz., that there is disloyalty in Ireland, due 
to the machinations of certain persons who 
are guilty of the crime of desiring to make 
Ireland a free republic; these persons are 
the Sinn Feiners ; during the war these Sinn 
Feiners entered into treasonable conspiracies 
with the Germans with the purpose of throw- 
ing off the English yoke; during the war 
these same Sinn Feiners provoked an unwar- 
ranted rebellion in Ireland; the Sinn Feiners 
and many people in Ireland were pro-Ger- 
man; they aided German submarines; Ireland 
refused to do its full part in the war, and 
representatives from the Irish Race Conven- 
tion in Philadelphia went to Ireland and 
fomented rebellion. 

The author centers his attack on Sinn 
Fein. He muddles his way through several 
pages, which he would have his readers be- 
lieve are a summary of the history of that 
organization. He speaks of the origin of the 
Sinn Fein movement without even mention- 
ing the name of Arthur Griffith, its founder, 
and the man who has directed its policies 
from the beginning. This omission is all the 
more notable because Griffith gets full credit 
for his work in some books in the author's 
bigliography. Sinn Fein cannot be understood 
apart from Arthur Griffith. Had this pro- 
fessor of modern history any knowledge of 
Arthur Griffith? If he had, he is guilty of 
a most contemptible piece of deception in fail- 
ing to advert to him. If he had not, he 
should never have attempted to write about 
Sinn Fein. Arthur Griffith is not only a 



striking figure in the public life of Ireland, 
but a man of international importance. 

Professor Turner tells us that Sinn Fein 
was established in 1905, that "it was at first 
merely an aspect of the Irish Revival," but 
"soon it became the new great force in the 
politics of the Island;" "it was soon con- 
nected with the Irish Republican Brother- 
hood, another society disloyal to the British 
Government ;" "soon the leaders adopted ac- 
tive and troublesome politics, and more and 
more the movement was guided by violent 
extremists." No proofs, it is hardly neces- 
sary to say, are given for any of these asser- 
tions. It would be interesting to know the 
sources of the author's information, if lie 
has any. He gives us to understand that 
after the outbreak of the war Roger 
Casement organized and drilled volunteers 
in Dublin. Some of the authorities listed 
by the learned professor say that Casement 
went to Germany from America after the 
outbreak of hostilities. How does the pro- 
fessor transport him through the war zone? 

Nothing in the whole book is more char- 
acteristic of the book and the man, of the 
production and the professor who produced 
it, of animus, analogy and error, than the 
effort to fasten on Sinn Fein and the Irish 
people the guilt of having aided German 
submarines during the war. On page 456 
attention is directed to the numerous bays 
and indentations along the Irish coast, "ideal 
lurking places for submarines, where they 
might, if the inhabitants ashore wished, very 
well receive supplies and assistance." Further 
down on the same page we find a statement 
exhibiting that peculiar mental perversion for 
which the author's general style might have 
prepared us. "It is said that German sub- 
marines did get some assistance on the coast." 
To the mind of this professor, presumably 
from his position a reputable man and from 
his training a gentleman, the possibility of 
evil is presumptive proof of guilt, good and 
sufficient reason for making a charge of the 
most serious character, for, on page 458, we 
read : "After German submarines had got 
petrol and supplies on the coast." 

Admiral Sims, the Canadian-born head of 
the American navy in European waters dur- 
ing the war, a man from whom England had 
no secrets, a man whose utterances in Pages' 
"World's Work" proves him as bitterly anti- 



Irish as Professor Turner, states positively 
in his "Own Story" : "These U-boats did not 
have bases off the Irish and Spanish coasts. 
Such bases would have served no useful pur- 
pose. . . . Bases on the Irish coast would 
have been useful only in case they could re- 
plenish the torpedoes, and this was obviously 
an impossibility.'' Thus one essential postu- 
late in the author's arraignment of Sinn Fein 
is exploded. Unless the author and his pub- 
lishers are in a catch-penny conspiracy to 
sell a malicious piece of propaganda, the de- 
nial of such a serious charge, a charge which 
is the keystone of all that is said against 
Sinn Fein, they should immediately withdraw 
the book from circulation, with apologies to 
the American people for having attempted 
such an imposition. 

Another charge equally grave and equally 
groundless is that found in the story of the 
famous or infamous "German Plot," which, 
although it was repudiated in England from 
the beginning, is here repeated without res- 
ervation or explanation. The author says 
positively that, "The British Government 
published from documents taken, evidence 
purporting to show that Sinn Fein had en- 
tered into correspondence with Germany for 
the furtherance of its measures" The an- 
nouncement of the discovery of this plot was 
first made by Carson, and for allegel com- 
plicity in it eighty-one persons were arrested 
and deported to England. They were kept in 
prison for ten months, they were never tried, 
and the evidence on which they were held 
has never been published. The evidence was 
never published, because such evidence never 
existed. The government, the Lloyd-George 
junta, has been taunted in Parliament and in 
the press with its failure to produce the evi- 
dence. It has never done so, for the good 
reason that such evidence never existed. 
Honest Englishmen blush with shame at the 
dishonor to their government and to their 
race in being connected with such a shady 
transaction. One of these Englishmen, Mr. 
McKean, speaking in the House of Com- 
mons June 25. 1918, had, among other things 
of like tenor, this to say : "I honestly believe 
that no government ever occupied a more hu- 
miliating position than the present govern- 
ment occupies with this miserable plot busi- 
ness. The whole thing wears upon it the 
stamp of unreality, not to use any stronger 



word. If there is any doubt whatever as t« 
the lack of genuineness of this plot, we get ii 
in Lord Wimborne's speech in the House of 
Lords last week. Lord Wimborne is not an 
irresponsible person. What the Government 
had got to do was to throw over this whole 
business of the plot, because after that decla- 
ration of Lord Wimborne's, there is no man 
who will believe in the reality of this plot." 

In attempting to influence the American 
people by holding up to their gaze a thing so 
distasteful to Englishmen, Professor Turner 
has earned for himself a castigation at the 
hands of some Englishman similar to that ad- 
ministered to the Anglo-maniac New York 
Times and New York Tribune by Mr. Clerr- 
ent Shorter in the pages of the Westminster 
Gazette. 

Let us take another example of Professor 
Turner's ethics as a teacher and his accuracy 
as an historian. Throughout his chapters in 
the third section of his book he constantly 
and persistently assails Sinn Fein. He ac- 
cuses Sinn Feiners of disloyalty. When did 
disloyalty to an alien and oppressive govern- 
ment become a crime in American eyes? He 
holds up his hands, rolls his eyes and beats 
his breast at the thought that the Sinn Fein- 
ers did not give a welcome to the English 
King when he visited Ireland, and in order 
to pack the jury and to prejudice the court 
he constantly asserts that they were pro- 
Germans. The culmination of their crimes 
was the "Easter Rebellion." For this re- 
bellion the Sinn Feiners are held entirely re- 
sponsible. It would be an honor to them if 
they could claim that glory. The point, how- 
ever, is not one of opinion, but of fact, be- 
cause it is on this fact of the Easter Rebel- 
lion, and on his maudlin references to the 
condition of the Allies at the time, that Pro- 
fessor Turner rests his indictment of Sinn 
Fein. If the Sinn Feiners did not cause the 
Easter insurrection, then the entire third part 
of this anti-Sinn Fein screed has no point 
What are the facts? P. S. CHegarty, who 
was in a position to know all that took plac. 
and whose standing as an author is secure, 
whose pamphlet is on the professor's list, 
says ("Sinn Fein, An Illumination," page 
53) : "As a matter of actual fact, Sinn Fein 
had nothing to do with the insurrection. 
which was, as even the Hardinge Commis- 
sion evidence shows, a Fenian insurrection. 



10 



Qf the seven men who signed the Republican 
proclamation only one was in any sense a 
Sinn Feiner — Sean MacDiarmada — and most 
of the others would have objected very 
strongly to being identified with Sinn Fein. 
Of the Sinn Fein leaders proper, most were 
not out in the insurrection at all, nor were 
they apparently in the counsels of the men 
who directed it." The point here is no: 
whether the Sinn Fein leaders lost a chance 
of glory by not being out, but whether the 
record is to be kept clear in order that the 
American people may have the chance c 
arriving at a just decision. Sinn Fein had 
not appealed to a majority of the Irish peo- 
ple until after the insurrection. The insur- 
rection made Sinn Fein, not Sinn Fein the 
insurrection. Professor Turner says of the 
pamphlet in question that it was "written by 
an ardent advocate." He does not seem to 
comprehend that truth is compatible with ar- 
dent advocacy. He himself has read O'Heg- 
arty's pamphlet, and yet he states the case 
contrary to the facts. 

One other case to which reference has al- 
ready been made may be again referred to. 
because it is so typical of the author, his 
style and his character. Speaking of th 
visit of the representatives sent to the Peace 
Conference by the Irish Race Convention in 
Philadelphia, he says, "Representatives were 
sent by the Philadelphia Convention to Ire- 
land, where they were received with wild 
ovation, since they, like the Sinn Fein lead- 
ers just before, seemed to promise that the 
Peace Conference would take up Ireland's 
case, and that Irish independence would fol- 
low soon after. Their activities were regard- 
ed by many of the British people with con- 
siderable coolness and suspicion. It was be- 
lieved that no other government than the 
British would have permitted such delegates 
to act as these Americans did ; and it was 
thought that such tolerance had been a grie- 
vious mistake, since competent observers 
were now declaring that the Irish people were 
so wrought upon and so greatly inflamed that 
only by a miracle would it be possible to 
avert a rebellion worse than the one three 
years before." 

The author seems to be especially bitter on 
this point of the American mission. He re- 
turns to it in his article in Pages' "World's 
Work/' He says, "Two of our citizens went 



forth," "Messrs. Walsh and Dunne went to 
Ireland, not to study the situation and give 
wise advice, but with minds beforehand made 
up, with hearts filled with the most uncom- 
promising spirit of Sinn Fein, and all too 
ready to talk the language of irreconcilable 
Irish-American newspapers, they went from 
on • place to another and continued to make 
simple-minded Irishman believe that the 
United Stales might bring about all that 
Sinn Fein had promised." It is not possible 
to quote in full all that the author has to 
say in Pages' monthly about this mission, but 
were it possible or desirable to do so, the 
same verdict would apply to both book and 
periodical. There is not a single direct state- 
ment in either which is true. 

The Race Convention sent representatives 
to the Peace Conference in Paris, not to Ire- 
land ; they sent three, not two. These gen- 
tlemen went from Paris to Ireland with 
passports from the British and with the 
openly avowed purpose of communicating 
with the representatives of the Irish 
people. They did not seem to promise nor 
did they promise that the Peace Conference 
would take up Ireland's case. The matter 
was settled before they left Paris. They 
made no predictions nor prophecies as to 
whether Irish independence would follow 
soon after or long after. "Regarded by 
many of the British people with coolness and 
suspicion." American uniforms in England 
were regarded with more than coolness, and 
the wearers were treated with violence, when- 
ever the hospitable Britons could do so with 
safety. It was believed. By whom? Where? 
When? It was thought. By whom? Where? 
When? Competent observers. Who? Where? 
When? Language of irreconcilable Irish- 
American newspapers. Irreconcilable with 
what? With tyranny. With English junk- 
erism. And contrived to make, etc. Where? 
When? 

These statements and many others like 
them were not made in jest. They were 
set down in all seriousness _by a professor of 
history. If history is taught to the students 
at Ann Arbor in the fashion it is here dished 
up for the public by one of their professors, 
then heaven help the students at Ann Arbor. 
Nothing but moral perversion can explain 
how a thing which would not be accepted by 
any professor in any school in the countrv 



11 



as an exercise in history should be pawned 
off on the public by a professor of history. 
The debasement of historical fact to propa- 
ganda is not easily forgiven in anybody; it 
is a crime in a professor. 

The book is not impartial. Not only in 
the fact that he puts himself forward as the 
advocate of a special plan of settlement of 
the Irish question, which has never been 
officially proposed in England, and which, as 
far as can be seen, is the scheme outlined in 
the Northcliffe publications ; not only in the 
fact that he constantly slurs the Irish who 
dare to speak of independence, and that he 
is always the defender of everything English 
and Carsonite, does the author give the lie 
to his assertions of impartiality, but his vio- 
lent abuse of those who entertain views not 
acceptable to English junkerdom mark him 
out as a partisan, a special pleader, a rabid 
and intemperate propagandist. Does impar- 
tiality sit well with such phrases as "silly and 
immoderate," "vehement Irish recalcitrants," 
"contemptible and silly," "wild and unjust," 
"childlike and foolish," "violent extremists," 
"rebels," "virulent campaign"? Yet by some 
strange psychological twist the author is able 
to say with sanctimonious unctuousness, "Sinn 
Fein and its idea of complete independence 
for Ireland I have tried to discuss sympa- 
thetically." Discrepancy between statement 
and fact is sometimes designated by "a short 
and ugly word." 

It is not comprehensive. It is a funda- 
mental postulate not only in the maintenance 
of justice, but in normal human intercourse 
that when men speak they should tell not 
only the truth, but the whole truth. , The 
Supprcssio veri is not less base among men 
of honor than the Assertio falsi. In this book 
the author offers himself as a qualified wit- 
ness to the American people in order that, 
by his testimony, they may be in a position 
to pronounce verdict on the claims of the 
Irish people to independence. If he is a 
reliable witness, he will suppress nothing that 
is essential, nothing that is capital. Let us 
see how he fares as a witness. 

In the events leading up to the establish- 
ment of the Sinn Fein Parliament, in the 
events that have united Ireland today in its 
demand for complete separation from Eng- 
land there are some of such vital import 
that they cannot be omitted without distort- 
ing the whole story. The present condition 



of Ireland had its beginning in the passage 
of the Home-Rule Bill by the Asquith minis- 
try in 1912. The first Gladstone Home-Rule 
Bill was defeated in the Commons. The sec- 
ond Gladstone Home-Rule Bill endorsed by 
the English Democracy passed the House of 
Commons, but was assasinated in the House 
of Lords. Gladstone retired a beaten man, 
too old or too timid to take up the problem 
of removing the House of Lords not only 
from the way of home-rule but from that of 
many other urgent liberal reforms. The 
House of Lords blocked the way to any- 
thing like liberal or democratic legislation, 
until its power of obstruction was partly de- 
stroyed by the Parliament Act of 1911. Af- 
ter the passage of this act, the English de- 
mocracy again decided for home rule, and 
again the bill was passed by the Commons. 
The aristocracy now adopted new tactics, 
and with the aid of Carson they inflamed 
Orange bigotry and fanaticism in the north 
of Ireland by means of the arguments to 
which Professor Turner gives so much space 
in this book, and by contributions of money. 
The author does not dwell on this phase of 
the question, nor does he advert to this at- 
tack on that democracy of which he is so 
fond of speaking. He does not show where 
the strength of the Carson Covenanters lay, 
namely, in the English aristocracy, nor does 
he see in the Orange movement a warfare 
on democracy. He omits all mention of the 
great, outstanding fact in modern English 
history, the flouting of the will of the people 
by an arrogant militarism. He says nothing 
of the revolt of French and Gough and the 
English officers at the Curragh. He fails to 
note that these men, and those who aided 
and abetted them in England, set their will 
above the will of the English people. This 
fact of militaristic dictation, of defiance of 
democracy, is the salient feature of modern 
English history, the key to everything that 
has happened since, not only in Ireland, but 
perhaps in the world. There is no account 
of Carson's threats of revolution, not a word 
about the connection between the rebellion 
in Ulster and the outbreak of the world-war. 
though the American Ambassador, Mr. Ge- 
rard, has been at pains to show the effect 
that these Ulster threats had in military cir- 
cles in Berlin. There is no mention of the 
assurances the Carsonites said they had re- 
ceived from the Kaiser. Yet these are the 



12 



facts that led to the organization of the Irish 
Volunteers. The author does not say that 
Carson's Covenanters were allowed to im- 
port arms from Germany, while all the ma- 
chinery of government was set in motion 
when the Irish Volunteers attempted to arm 
themselves. No reference is made to the 
slaughter of innocent persons in the streets of 
Dublin by the brutal commander of the 
King's Own Royal Scottish Borderers. These 
are the essential connecting links in the se- 
ries of events in Ireland between 1912 ami 
1916. The author gives a chapter to "Con- 
scription in Ireland." He says nothing as to 
why the Irish, who had volunteered out of 
all proportion to their military population at 
the beginning of the war, lost their enthu- 
siasm for the English army. Mr. Lloyd 
George, speaking in the House of Commons 
on October 18, 1916, said, "Some of the stu- 
pidities (which sometimes look like malig- 
nities) which were perpetrated at the begin- 
ning of recruiting in Ireland are beyond be- 
lief. ... I remember that I was perfectly 
appalled at the methods adopted to try and 
induce the Irish people to join the ranks." 
No amount of false rhetoric and bad gram- 
mar, no mud slinging, no violent denunciation 
of the Irish as pro-Germans, no lacrimose 
references to stabbing England in the back, 
can hide these lacunae in the narrative. 
Nothing that the author has said or can say 
will save him from the ugly epithet applied 
to those who suppress the truth. 

It is not the work of a scholar. The schol- 
ar, the man worthy the name, does not seek 
for meretricious effects ; his only guide is 
the lamp of truth. He scorns innuendo and 
suggestion ; he neither rants nor reviles. 
Professor Turner, after speaking of the fail- 
ure of the insurrection in Dublin in 1916, 
couples with his narrative of that failure a 
statement so utterly lacking in proof as to 
brand him an impostor and a coward. He 
says, page 378, "German warships did dash 
out to bombard English coast towns, but this 
brought no assistance to the Irish Republic." 
What is the obvious inference ? That this 
was part of a prearranged plan between the 
Irish and the Germans. Scholarship knows 
no such device as this. Yet throughout the 
book we find the same trick repeated time 
and again by linking the Irish with move- 
ments and men who are the objects of public 
obloquy and hatred. 



The book is not American. The American 
will never condemn any man without giving 
him a fair hearing. The author of this book, 
through his publishers, proclaims that he is 
neither pro-Irish nor pro-English. Neither 
is he American. He quotes some mythical 
publisher to the effect that unless a book is 
pro-Irish it will not sell. By that statement 
alone he has condemned himself. He has 
unwittingly revealed himself as one of that 
class of foreign propagandists who are try- 
ing to force on the American public things 
which the American soul knows instinctively 
to be un-American. His point of view is un- 
American. He asserts again and again, and 
he ventures to assume the role of prophet in 
asserting, that Ireland cannot and will not 
attain its independence, because an inde- 
pendent Ireland is opposed to England's con- 
trol of the seas. His method of argumenta- 
tion justifies the attack on Belgium, the sub- 
jection of Serbia, the slaughter in Egypt, and 
every crime of imperialism and militarism 
known to history. He heaps abuse and scorn 
on the heads of the Irish because they desire 
independence, because they sought aid from 
France in the past. When did the love for 
liberty become a crime in the eyes of an 
American? When Pershing said: "Lafayette, 
we are here," did he glory in a thing which 
this author finds a crime in another people? 
The work is un-American because the author, 
in his effort to exalt the English, depre- 
ciates Americans and throws discredit on 
their history. He speaks of the "so-called 
War of 1812"; he speaks of America driv- 
ing Spain out of Florida and taking the South- 
west from Mexico in a manner "not now to 
be thought of with pride"; he tells us that 
"the people of Great Britain, properly from 
their point of view, looked upon Americans, 
whom they did not know very well, as rude 
and uncultured, as rough and uncouth, as 
pioneers and beginners, undeveloped and pro- 
vincial ; and there was certainly a great deal 
of truth in all of this." Are Americans to 
be asked to renounce the glories of the past, 
to repudiate the men who established the Re- 
public ; are they to remake their histories and 
forget the old belief that "the United States 
won freedom from a hateful England . . . 
because these ideas were widely held by many 
of the less well-informed in America, whose 
only knowledge came from inferior textbooks, 
filled with archaic mistakes, and whose preju- 



13 



dices were fostered by common politicians 
playing on that ignorant patriotism so often 
helpful to scoundrels"? The history of the 
Revolution and the War of 1812 and the rest 
of the history of this country has, therefore, 
been merely the work of common politicians, 
a device concocted by scoundrels to hood- 
wink the ignorant, and henceforth, unless a 
man is to be considered the victim of scoun- 
drels, he must not take pride in George 
Washington, nor Monroe, nor Adams, nor 
Lincoln, nor Cleveland. 

After reading some passages in this book 
one may well ask himself whether there is 
any limit to the patience of the American 
people or whether patriotism is not a dead 
and despised thing at some of our centers of 
the higher learning, and whether it might not 
be a good plan to extend the movement for 
Americanization to some of our universities. 

The examination of literary products such 
as that of Professor Turner is not a pleasure. 
Besides the tiresome repetition of the utterly 
meaningless and misleading impersonal phrases, 
"it was said," "it was believed," "it was 
conjectured," etc., etc., and the never-ceasing 
recurrence of inapplicable analogies, the style 
of the author is so sophomoric, so muddy at 
times, as to smother his ideas, if, indeed, he 
ever had any, on some of the subjects he 
discusses. Over it all, however, lies the 
shadow of a purpose, a purpose to induce the 
American people to take the views of a cer- 
tain class of English imperialists, to induce 
them to look kindly on a surrender of all 
those principles and purposes for which they 
poured out blood and treasure in the late war, 
to lead them to look with favor on English 
world-hegemony. In the pages of this book 
liberty, self-determination, independence seem 
to be matters for contempt, for ridicule, 
things loathsome and to be avoided. 

This manifest purpose naturally raises the 
question, Whom does the author speak for 
and whom does he seek to represent? He 
cannot be presumed to speak for America, 
for his theories are in open contradiction to 
American traditions and the spirit of Ameri- 
can institutions. Neither can he be presumed 
to speak for Englishmen as a whole. His 
defense is of the junker class in England; 
but that class have the manners of gentle- 
men. They do not use the snuffling tone of 
evangelical hypocrisy that runs through this 
book. They will lie and deceive, they will 



talk about liberty and democracy and the 
rights of small nations, they will profess 
adherence to American principles of liberty 
before the American Congress, and they will 
accept the peace program of the head of the 
American nation, with pockets bulging with 
secret treaties that make that program a 
mockery ; but they do not whine and cry. 
Neither does the author speak for the masses 
of England, for that English democracy, 
about which he talks so much, has already 
committed itself to the things which he assails 
and repudiates. 

The Century Company of New York would 
not publish an obscene book, because it does 
not wish that men should be unclean ; rt 
would not publish a manual for thieves, be- 
cause it would not have men dishonest; it 
would not publish a disloyal book, lest men 
should become traitors. It should not pub- 
lish a book which will keep men from seeing 
the truth, which may make them unjust and 
cause them to withhold their sympathy and 
support from people who desire to be free. 

Eleanor Bowie Turner and E. B. T. in 
aest. mem. (whatever that is, or was), may 
not have known what was in this book, but 
they are not honored in having it inscribed 
to them. 

Professor Edward Raymond Turner has 
compromised his standing as a professor and 
as a student, he has thrown discredit on his 
profession, and he has shown himself un- 
worthy to guide the youth of this land in 
the search for truth, by lending his name to 
a publication which can lay no claim to 
exaltation of purpose, to scientific distinc- 
tion, or to the promotion and dissemination 
of truth. 

The University of Michigan will suffer in 
the estimation of scholars everywhere if it 
allows to pass unrebuked such an open as- 
sault on scholastic standards and academic 
integrity. 

The legislators of the State of Michigan 
will be recreant to their duty if they do not 
seek to find out whether the University of 
Michigan is to be dominated by the spirit 
of the American Constitution or by the prop- 
agandist purposes of Northcliffe and Carson, 
if they do not secure some assurance that it is 
to be a place for the defense and inculcation 
of the principles of American democracy 
rather than a housing place for reactionary 
exponents of English imperialism. 



14 



laJSRfiSy 0F CONGRESS 



021342 114 1 



Model Printing Company 
Washington 



$3 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



II II IN II III Ml II II II 

021 342 114 1 



